DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collin et al. (US 2005/0129951).
Considering claim 1, Collin teaches a method of forming a cemented carbide tool (abstract; Paragraph 2) comprising inserts used in rock drilling and mineral cutting (Paragraph 10) (i.e. a mining insert). Embodiments are taught of forming a green compact of WC and Co (i.e. binder) and where the rake faces are covered by Cr3C2 (Paragraph 45) where the Cr3C2 is a grain refiner (Paragraph 14) and sintered at 1350 °C for 30 minutes (Paragraph 47) such that a surface portion of the tool 100 µm from the edge has a Cr content of 0.7 wt.% and the Co content is 4.0 wt.% (Paragraph 48) which corresponds to a ratio of 0.175.
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed method of producing a cemented carbide mining insert this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Collin as this is considered a combination of conventionally known WC, binder, and a grain growth inhibitor according to known methods and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the sintering temperature and time taught by Collin overlap those which are claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. While not expressly teaching where the concentrations are measured using WDS, the method of measuring components of a composition is considered to fall within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art and is not considered to render a distinction over disclosure of Collin.
Considering claim 3, Collin teaches where the binder may be Co (Paragraph 15).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collin et al. (US 2005/0129951) as applied to claim 1 further in view of Glatzle et al. (US 2004/0009088 – previously cited).
Considering claim 4, Collin teaches a method of forming a cutting tool insert of WC, binder, and a grain growth inhibitor as outlined above. However, Collin does not teach the claimed slurry.
In a related field of endeavor, Glatzle teaches a method of forming a hard metal component (Paragraphs 1-2) used in rock drilling (Paragraph 13). An example is taught of cutting tool tips (Paragraph 51) (e.g. a mining insert) formed by a step of forming a green compact of 89.5 wt.% WC, 0.5 wt.% Cr3C2 and the balance Co (i.e. a binder) where the green body is dipped in a dispersion of particles of V2O5 (i.e. applying a second powder of a grain refiner to at least one surface), then sintered at 1400 °C (Paragraph 51). The grain growth inhibitor may comprise V, Cr, Ti, Ta, and Nb and compounds thereof (Paragraph 25) and where the grain growth inhibitor is applied to the green body as a dispersion (i.e. a slurry) (Paragraph 51).
As both Collin and Glatzle teach methods of forming cutting tools they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Collin with the dispersion (i.e. slurry) application taught by Glatzle as this is considered a combination of methods of applying a conventionally known grain growth inhibitor according to known methods and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collin et al. (US 2005/0129951) as applied to claim 1 further in view of Rainey et al. (US 7,258,833 – previously cited).
Considering claim 5, Collin teaches a method of forming a cutting tool insert of WC, binder, and a grain growth inhibitor as outlined above, but does not teach the claimed tumbling process.
In a related field of endeavor, Rainey teaches abrasive wear components, such as tungsten carbide, having high hardness and toughness for use in drilling, etc. (Column 1 lines 12-17). The component is formed by pressing powder of WC and a binder and firing the body then cascading the components in a high-energy machine (Column 1 lines 43-52) where the cascading improves the surface finish and reduces stress concentration (Column 1 lines 59-65). The cascading comprises placing the components in a centrifugal barrel where the components are repeatedly collided with each other to cascade or tumble the components (Column 2 lines 51-67) (i.e. treated with a tumbling process).
As both Collin and Rainey teach cutting tool processes they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the process of Collin with the tumbling taught by Rainey as this is known to reduce stress concentration, etc. and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to that which is claimed is Rainey (US 7,258,833 – previously cited). Rainey teaches tumbling of wear components, but does not adequately teach with sufficient specificity the claimed ΔHV3% and there is no expectation that it would necessarily be present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p.5 regarding 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections in view of Glatzle and remarks p.6 regarding 35 USC 103 rejections in view of Glatzle, and remarks p.7 regarding 35 USC 103 rejections in view of Glatzle and Rainey, filed 28 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Collin as outlined above.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the combination of Rainey is persuasive regarding the claimed ΔHV3% (i.e. claim 6) are persuasive. However, this is not persuasive regarding claim 5 as this is not a claimed feature and therefore this argument is not commensurate with that which is claimed and therefore the teachings of Collin and Rainey render obvious instant claim 5. See MPEP 2145 (VI).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights